Swindon AdvertiserMan kicked as he lay on ground (From Swindon Advertiser)

Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us

Man kicked as he lay on ground

Swindon Advertiser: Man kicked as he lay on ground Man kicked as he lay on ground

TWO teenagers who left a man lying lifeless in the street following an unprovoked drunken attack have been jailed.

Raffaele Bretti and Billy Wherry said they set upon their victim because they thought he had been rude to a girl they knew who was badgering him for a cigarette.

The 18-year-olds and a third man, who was never caught, put him to the ground then rained kicks on his prone body, running off when they saw he was unconscious.

Tessa Hingston, prosecuting, told Swindon Crown Court victim Scott Baxter, a man in his early thirties, was attacked on the night of October 10.

She said he had been having a couple of pints in Yates’, on Bridge Street, killing time before picking his girlfriend up from work.

As he left he was approached by a young woman who, seeing he was smoking, asked him to give her a cigarette.

When he declined she became abusive and swearing, saying ‘Do you think you are a big man, why are you refusing me a cigarette?’ He thought the female, who was in a group of young men, was trying to provoke a confrontation saying things like ‘Do you want to hit me?’ as she followed after him.

“Mr Baxter continued to walk on his way, trying to put some distance between him and the female,” Miss Hingston said.

“Then without provocation the defendant Bretti approached first, grabbed him by the shoulder and punched him once to the face.

“Mr Wherry was close behind and the pair grabbed him and swung him to the ground.

“Once he was prone on the ground he was then kicked repeatedly. One other male then joined in who aimed a further kick.”

The attackers fled and when he came round the victim called the police and the pair were identified from CCTV footage.

Miss Hingston said the pair claimed the victim had assaulted one of their friends earlier in the evening and made a lewd comment to the girl, both of which he denies.

Bretti, of Park Lane, and Wherry, of Avebury Road, Penhill, pleaded guilty to actual bodily harm.

Martin Wiggins, for Wherry, said his client, who was drunk, thought he heard the victim make ‘improper comments’ to the girl and stepped in to help out his friend.

Rob Ross, for Bretti, said his client was just 17 at the time of the incident and could not remember it as he was so drunk.

Bretti was jailed for eight months and Wherry for six months.

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:02am Tue 14 Jan 14

Hmmmf says...

Adver wrote:
TWO teenagers who left a man lying lifeless in the street following an unprovoked drunken attack have been jailed.

Lifeless? Ffs.
[quote][p][bold]Adver[/bold] wrote: TWO teenagers who left a man lying lifeless in the street following an unprovoked drunken attack have been jailed. [/quote] Lifeless? Ffs. Hmmmf
  • Score: -4

9:28am Tue 14 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Maximum sentence for Actual Bodily Harm: 5 years imprisoment

Sentence given in this case of Actual Bodily Harm: 8 months and 6 months, so out in 4 months and 3 months (or slightly less).
Maximum sentence for Actual Bodily Harm: 5 years imprisoment Sentence given in this case of Actual Bodily Harm: 8 months and 6 months, so out in 4 months and 3 months (or slightly less). ChannelX
  • Score: 14

9:39am Tue 14 Jan 14

attilla the hun says...

scum!, pure and simple. they deserve stoning in public
scum!, pure and simple. they deserve stoning in public attilla the hun
  • Score: 15

10:05am Tue 14 Jan 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

Why was the instigator (the women) not prosecuted as well?

There was a third man involved, presumably part of the same group. Where defendants fail to provide the identity of another individual involved sentences should be automatically tripled.

So one of the men was 17 at the time of the incident and they were drinking in a pub and were so drunk they could not remember. So the pub licensee is being prosecuted as well then are they....?
Why was the instigator (the women) not prosecuted as well? There was a third man involved, presumably part of the same group. Where defendants fail to provide the identity of another individual involved sentences should be automatically tripled. So one of the men was 17 at the time of the incident and they were drinking in a pub and were so drunk they could not remember. So the pub licensee is being prosecuted as well then are they....? LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 22

10:07am Tue 14 Jan 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

Hmmmf wrote:
Adver wrote:
TWO teenagers who left a man lying lifeless in the street following an unprovoked drunken attack have been jailed.

Lifeless? Ffs.
They left them unconscious, which does make a person look lifeless.

Quote "The 18-year-olds and a third man, who was never caught, put him to the ground then rained kicks on his prone body, running off when they saw he was unconscious."
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adver[/bold] wrote: TWO teenagers who left a man lying lifeless in the street following an unprovoked drunken attack have been jailed. [/quote] Lifeless? Ffs.[/p][/quote]They left them unconscious, which does make a person look lifeless. Quote "The 18-year-olds and a third man, who was never caught, put him to the ground then rained kicks on his prone body, running off when they saw he was unconscious." LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 10

10:59am Tue 14 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

The vile female should be locked up too by the sounds of it. A totally unprovoked attack by cowardly scumbags.
The vile female should be locked up too by the sounds of it. A totally unprovoked attack by cowardly scumbags. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 16

12:07pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Hmmmf says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
Adver wrote:
TWO teenagers who left a man lying lifeless in the street following an unprovoked drunken attack have been jailed.

Lifeless? Ffs.
They left them unconscious, which does make a person look lifeless.

Quote "The 18-year-olds and a third man, who was never caught, put him to the ground then rained kicks on his prone body, running off when they saw he was unconscious."
Oh please.
Lifeless=dead.
Senseless=unconsciou
s
It's one thing for Adver reporters and their editor to have the vocabulary of a 10-year old, but I expected better of you, LordAsh.
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adver[/bold] wrote: TWO teenagers who left a man lying lifeless in the street following an unprovoked drunken attack have been jailed. [/quote] Lifeless? Ffs.[/p][/quote]They left them unconscious, which does make a person look lifeless. Quote "The 18-year-olds and a third man, who was never caught, put him to the ground then rained kicks on his prone body, running off when they saw he was unconscious."[/p][/quote]Oh please. Lifeless=dead. Senseless=unconsciou s It's one thing for Adver reporters and their editor to have the vocabulary of a 10-year old, but I expected better of you, LordAsh. Hmmmf
  • Score: -4

12:28pm Tue 14 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
Why was the instigator (the women) not prosecuted as well?

There was a third man involved, presumably part of the same group. Where defendants fail to provide the identity of another individual involved sentences should be automatically tripled.

So one of the men was 17 at the time of the incident and they were drinking in a pub and were so drunk they could not remember. So the pub licensee is being prosecuted as well then are they....?
Excellent post.

Numerous crimes, and criminals, have been completely overlooked and/or ignored by the CPS here.

While I agree that sentences should be at least handed down near the maximum where defendants refuse to name their partners in crime, their slimey defence lawyers will simply instruct them to lie and say they didn't know who the other person was. As with most lies defence lawyers use, or tell their clients to use, it's generally impossible to prove otherwise, sadly.

Although the criminals in this case pleaded guilty, no doubt to secure an automatically reduced sentence and despite CCTV and witness evidence meaning they couldn't plead not guilty in any case, questions must be asked as to why the judge decided to sentence so unduly leniently in this case.

A potential maximum of 5 years and yet one of them receives just 3 MONTHS in prison? Hardly going to help deter them from assaulting people in future, is it?
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: Why was the instigator (the women) not prosecuted as well? There was a third man involved, presumably part of the same group. Where defendants fail to provide the identity of another individual involved sentences should be automatically tripled. So one of the men was 17 at the time of the incident and they were drinking in a pub and were so drunk they could not remember. So the pub licensee is being prosecuted as well then are they....?[/p][/quote]Excellent post. Numerous crimes, and criminals, have been completely overlooked and/or ignored by the CPS here. While I agree that sentences should be at least handed down near the maximum where defendants refuse to name their partners in crime, their slimey defence lawyers will simply instruct them to lie and say they didn't know who the other person was. As with most lies defence lawyers use, or tell their clients to use, it's generally impossible to prove otherwise, sadly. Although the criminals in this case pleaded guilty, no doubt to secure an automatically reduced sentence and despite CCTV and witness evidence meaning they couldn't plead not guilty in any case, questions must be asked as to why the judge decided to sentence so unduly leniently in this case. A potential maximum of 5 years and yet one of them receives just 3 MONTHS in prison? Hardly going to help deter them from assaulting people in future, is it? ChannelX
  • Score: 10

1:03pm Tue 14 Jan 14

SlantedView says...

ChannelX wrote:
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote: Why was the instigator (the women) not prosecuted as well? There was a third man involved, presumably part of the same group. Where defendants fail to provide the identity of another individual involved sentences should be automatically tripled. So one of the men was 17 at the time of the incident and they were drinking in a pub and were so drunk they could not remember. So the pub licensee is being prosecuted as well then are they....?
Excellent post. Numerous crimes, and criminals, have been completely overlooked and/or ignored by the CPS here. While I agree that sentences should be at least handed down near the maximum where defendants refuse to name their partners in crime, their slimey defence lawyers will simply instruct them to lie and say they didn't know who the other person was. As with most lies defence lawyers use, or tell their clients to use, it's generally impossible to prove otherwise, sadly. Although the criminals in this case pleaded guilty, no doubt to secure an automatically reduced sentence and despite CCTV and witness evidence meaning they couldn't plead not guilty in any case, questions must be asked as to why the judge decided to sentence so unduly leniently in this case. A potential maximum of 5 years and yet one of them receives just 3 MONTHS in prison? Hardly going to help deter them from assaulting people in future, is it?
Completely agree! The irony is, if the guy managed to protect himself and caused damage to those morons, he'd probably have received a longer sentence. The punishments handed out by this court are a joke!
On an aside. Has anybody seen Rob Ross?! I'm surprised he hasn't been jailed by mistake. They say dog owners resemble their pets!
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: Why was the instigator (the women) not prosecuted as well? There was a third man involved, presumably part of the same group. Where defendants fail to provide the identity of another individual involved sentences should be automatically tripled. So one of the men was 17 at the time of the incident and they were drinking in a pub and were so drunk they could not remember. So the pub licensee is being prosecuted as well then are they....?[/p][/quote]Excellent post. Numerous crimes, and criminals, have been completely overlooked and/or ignored by the CPS here. While I agree that sentences should be at least handed down near the maximum where defendants refuse to name their partners in crime, their slimey defence lawyers will simply instruct them to lie and say they didn't know who the other person was. As with most lies defence lawyers use, or tell their clients to use, it's generally impossible to prove otherwise, sadly. Although the criminals in this case pleaded guilty, no doubt to secure an automatically reduced sentence and despite CCTV and witness evidence meaning they couldn't plead not guilty in any case, questions must be asked as to why the judge decided to sentence so unduly leniently in this case. A potential maximum of 5 years and yet one of them receives just 3 MONTHS in prison? Hardly going to help deter them from assaulting people in future, is it?[/p][/quote]Completely agree! The irony is, if the guy managed to protect himself and caused damage to those morons, he'd probably have received a longer sentence. The punishments handed out by this court are a joke! On an aside. Has anybody seen Rob Ross?! I'm surprised he hasn't been jailed by mistake. They say dog owners resemble their pets! SlantedView
  • Score: 5

1:23pm Tue 14 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

Even the maximum sentence in an insult in these sorts of cases. These are the sort of scum the world would be a much better place without.
Even the maximum sentence in an insult in these sorts of cases. These are the sort of scum the world would be a much better place without. house on the hill
  • Score: 7

3:53pm Tue 14 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Another would be gangsters sent to perfect their "art" in jail and gain further status upon their release........I am sure this is not the last time we hear about these scumbags, who will they hurt next time in Swindon and how bad? let's play the swindon roulette.
Another would be gangsters sent to perfect their "art" in jail and gain further status upon their release........I am sure this is not the last time we hear about these scumbags, who will they hurt next time in Swindon and how bad? let's play the swindon roulette. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 6

5:24pm Tue 14 Jan 14

DLP OldTown says...

When will we see a Judge hand out the maximum to these scumbags, where's the deterrent, its a joke.
When will we see a Judge hand out the maximum to these scumbags, where's the deterrent, its a joke. DLP OldTown
  • Score: 8

6:17pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Red Since 62 says...

Totally inappropriate sentence, should have been given 3 years each.
Totally inappropriate sentence, should have been given 3 years each. Red Since 62
  • Score: 9

9:49pm Tue 14 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Another would be gangsters sent to perfect their "art" in jail and gain further status upon their release........I am sure this is not the last time we hear about these scumbags, who will they hurt next time in Swindon and how bad? let's play the swindon roulette.
easy to criticise, but please tell us what the answer is then? And its not just Swindon its everywhere.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Another would be gangsters sent to perfect their "art" in jail and gain further status upon their release........I am sure this is not the last time we hear about these scumbags, who will they hurt next time in Swindon and how bad? let's play the swindon roulette.[/p][/quote]easy to criticise, but please tell us what the answer is then? And its not just Swindon its everywhere. house on the hill
  • Score: 2

9:06am Wed 15 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

DLP OldTown wrote:
When will we see a Judge hand out the maximum to these scumbags, where's the deterrent, its a joke.
They never do. It's always a race to sentence as unduly leniently as possible for our judiciary. They misguidedly believe it makes them 'enlightened'.

Our main local judge is one of the most appalling examples of it.
[quote][p][bold]DLP OldTown[/bold] wrote: When will we see a Judge hand out the maximum to these scumbags, where's the deterrent, its a joke.[/p][/quote]They never do. It's always a race to sentence as unduly leniently as possible for our judiciary. They misguidedly believe it makes them 'enlightened'. Our main local judge is one of the most appalling examples of it. ChannelX
  • Score: 3

11:06am Wed 15 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

house on the hill wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Another would be gangsters sent to perfect their "art" in jail and gain further status upon their release........I am sure this is not the last time we hear about these scumbags, who will they hurt next time in Swindon and how bad? let's play the swindon roulette.
easy to criticise, but please tell us what the answer is then? And its not just Swindon its everywhere.
These imbeciles will cost the taxpayers 50K for their short stay in prison, having learnt nothing from their misdeeds.
My suggestion: stop any further benefits paid to the families of these morons or recuperate the cost of jailing them from the families and the culprits, call it Jail Loan if you want.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Another would be gangsters sent to perfect their "art" in jail and gain further status upon their release........I am sure this is not the last time we hear about these scumbags, who will they hurt next time in Swindon and how bad? let's play the swindon roulette.[/p][/quote]easy to criticise, but please tell us what the answer is then? And its not just Swindon its everywhere.[/p][/quote]These imbeciles will cost the taxpayers 50K for their short stay in prison, having learnt nothing from their misdeeds. My suggestion: stop any further benefits paid to the families of these morons or recuperate the cost of jailing them from the families and the culprits, call it Jail Loan if you want. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree